Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 18 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4705915)
Does anyone here want to assert that if Barry Sanders were openly gay in college he wouldn't have been drafted by the NFL in 1989?

Not a direct answer and I know this will be a terrible disappointment to everyone who believes social and cultural history began in 2008, but Tom Cousineau was widely rumored to be gay, and he was drafted #1 overall in ... 1979.

Which turned out to be a terrible overdraft.

   1702. BDC Posted: May 13, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4705918)
if Barry Sanders were openly gay in college

Well, if my aunt hadn't been cisgender, she'd have been my uncle.
   1703. Ron J2 Posted: May 13, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4705920)
#1700 I honestly don't know. I mean we are talking the Lions. And talking specifically of Sanders you have the cover of his size. (We didn't take him because the track record of 5'8" running backs isn't very good). Troy Aikman would have been a better choice I think because he was perceived as a franchise QB. And I'm doubtful that any team, any time would have passed on Aikman.

But I'd turn that question around. Care to argue it wouldn't have affected (say) Jerry Fontenot? Because I think it reasonably clear it would have.
   1704. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4705923)
You "honestly don't know" if Barry Sanders would have been drafted?

The world's ultimate meritocracy is going to let one of the best running backs to ever walk the Earth stay unemployed because he's gay? In 1989?

OK, sure.

   1705. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4705924)
Andy, I'm in Hong Kong without the standard 692 channels to choose from and I fell into A Catered Affair the other night, with Bette Davis, Debbie Reynolds, and Ernest Borgnine. Thoughts? I thought it was interesting enough to watch, although pre-1965 era films do tend to seem sort of boring to me. This one was better than most.

Good movie, but as you likely discovered, it's often painful to watch the family melodrama play out. Davis's character is a bit reminiscent of Barbara Stanwyck's Stella Dallas, in that they're both rather poignant portrayals of how two mothers dealt with feelings of missed opportunities in their own lives.

----------------------------------------

Of course it wasn't, but it was no more accepted as being remotely normal or natural by the mainstream movie audiences then than it is in much of the Bible Belt today.

An assertion completely belied by the very existence of the three minute-plus scene -- and the "scores" of other pre-code "gay" scenes you referred to earlier.


Um, there's a reason I put those "gay" scenes in quotes. They weren't any more "gay" in a real sense than a 1950's high school skit involving jocks dressing up as cheerleaders.

As Gonfalon has already suggested, you might want to watch the preceding 2 1/4 hours before issuing such grand proclamations. I'd only add that you might also stick it out and watch the closing scene.

Why don't you just tell us? Were they persecuted for their obvious gay desire? For the kiss? Did a card in the next scene say, "These people are vile sinners, don't try this at home"?? What happens?


Here's TCM's plot summary of Wings. You can invent all the "gay" scenes you want:

In 1917, in a small American town, Jack Powell tinkers on a car, while daydreaming about airplanes. When the car is roadworthy, Jack names it "Shooting Star" and Mary Preston, the girl next door who helped him, paints a star on the side of the vehicle. Oblivious to the infatuated Mary's feelings for him, Jack invites a more sophisticated city girl, Sylvia Lewis, to accompany him on the first drive. Sylvia rides with Jack, but she is in love with David Armstrong, the son of the town's wealthiest family. Later, when the United States enters World War I, Jack and David enlist and apply to aviation school. Before they leave, Sylvia signs a picture of herself and puts it in a locket for David, but when Jack sees it and thinks it is meant for him, she does not have the heart to contradict him. David, who returns Sylvia's affection, is hurt, but she takes him aside and explains that, although Jack has her picture, David has her heart. Jack almost forgets to say goodbye to Mary, but then runs back to shake her hand and give her permission to use the car. While saying his farewells to his mother and wheelchair-bound father, David finds a favorite old toy, a tiny bear, which he decides to take with him for good luck. During basic training, an antagonism develops between Jack and David, which is finally resolved in boxing class when they are paired off in a heated practice bout of boxing and become fast friends. After Jack and David complete ground school, they are bunked with Cadet White, an affable and experienced young flier. Upon seeing David's bear, White comments that many fliers have mascots, although he does not, as he believes, "when your time comes, you're going to get it." He then leaves for flight practice during which he dies in a plane crash. Later, when Jack and David are sent to France, Jack paints a star-shaped logo on his plane like the one on his car. During their first patrol, the fliers encounter Capt. Kellermann, a famous German ace and leader of the "Flying Circus." At 10,000 feet in the air, a dogfight ensues, during which both German and Allied planes are lost. David's machine gun jams as he is singled out for an attack, but his opponent chivalrously spares his life. Jack becomes separated from his formation and is attacked by two German Fokkers, forcing him to crash-land and abandon his plane. He survives, and takes refuge with entrenched British ground soldiers. Meanwhile, Mary, who has learned to drive the Shooting Star and has joined the Women's Motor Corps of America, is sent overseas to transport medical supplies. She is driving toward flu-stricken Mervale, where billeted regiments crowd the little village, when a Gotha, the mightiest of German bomber planes, attacks. Jack, David and their colleagues come to the rescue during an aerial battle, and shoot down the Gotha and its two escort planes, thereby saving the village. As they fly away, someone points out to Mary the shooting star on the side of one of the planes and Mary realizes that Jack had been there. For their accomplishments, the pilots are decorated as heroes and given a furlough in Paris. To escape the horrors of war, Jack carouses with a Folies Bergère performer. Mary, who is also in Paris, finds Jack at the Folies too drunk to comprehend when all leave is cancelled in preparation for the Allies' "big push" against the Germans. Mary tries to tell him about the change in his orders, but in his inebriated state, Jack sees only her uniform and sends her away. While the rejected Mary is in the ladies' room crying, a sympathetic attendant advises her to "catch the fly" with "sugar, not vinegar," then takes her backstage. Later, provocatively attired in a show girl's costume, Mary seduces Jack away from his female companion and takes him to his hotel room, where he falls asleep on the bed before she can get him sober. While she is changing back into her uniform, military police rounding up the men walk in and conclude that she has been moonlighting as a prostitute. Jack is returned to his unit with little memory of his night of revelry, and Mary is arrested and sent home in disgrace. Back at the base, while waiting for orders, David has a premonition that he will not return home. Upon reading in the newspaper that Mary has resigned from the corps, Jack expresses surprise that Mary would quit. When fellow pilot Lt. Walter Cameron suggests that she was fired for sexual misconduct, Jack takes offense and David watches as Jack hotly defends her reputation. Having received numerous love letters from Sylvia, David hopes that Jack's affection has turned to Mary until Jack shows him Sylvia's locket. Believing that Sylvia shares his feelings, Jack says that her picture is his good luck charm. When the picture falls from the locket, David reads the inscription on the back dedicated to him, which Jack has never seen. Unable to put it back without Jack seeing it, David is ready to fight his friend for the photo, rather than let him be hurt by the truth, but they are interrupted by orders to board their planes. They take off without resolving their quarrel and without their respective good luck charms, as David's bear has also fallen from his pocket. The pilots are sent to protect ground troops who are under attack from German fliers. David hurls himself into danger to protect Jack from attack and later crashes near the Mad River in German-occupied territory. After successfully evading the Germans that night, near dawn Jack steals a Fokker from an airfield, hoping he can fly it back to his base. Meanwhile, presuming that David is dead, Jack vows to avenge him. After daybreak, he and his comrades fly out to assist the advancing Allied ground soldiers as the war is waged both in the air and on the ground. When David flies to the scene, Jack spots his plane, but sees only the German cross on the fusilage and does not recognize his friend. Although David tries to call out to Jack and evade his single-minded assaults, Jack shoots down his plane, which crashes into a church. Feeling victorious, Jack lands, but discovers to his great shame and grief that he has fatally wounded David, who forgives him before dying. After the war, Jack is welcomed home as a hero with parades and other festivities, but must carry out one more war-related task. Ashamed and grieving, he returns David's medal and little bear to the Armstrongs and receives forgiveness. Later, Mary comes to sit with Jack near his car and they talk for hours. By evening, when they see a shooting star in the sky, Jack realizes that he loves Mary.
   1706. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4705926)
Here's TCM's plot summary of Wings. You can invent all the "gay" scenes you want:

Oh. I thought you were going to say the movie, in other places, somehow frowned on the protagonists' obvious gay desire.

You mean it didn't?
   1707. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4705928)
Here's TCM's plot summary of Wings. You can invent all the "gay" scenes you want

For God's sake, Andy, open your eyes. The whole movie is about biplanes.
   1708. zenbitz Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4705929)
Saying something is "not a big deal" which is a big deal to other people is just being an arsehole. I mean, unless you are claiming some kind of damage.

   1709. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4705939)
#1700 I honestly don't know. I mean we are talking the Lions. And talking specifically of Sanders you have the cover of his size.


But the question was whether he'd have been drafted, and I can't see a player who went #3 going undrafted in 1989 because he was openly gay.

But I'd turn that question around. Care to argue it wouldn't have affected (say) Jerry Fontenot? Because I think it reasonably clear it would have.


I don't know who Fontenot is but -- to address what I think is your point -- I presume he was a low-round draft pick around that time. Sure, it may have affected him. Ironically, I think there is probably a bigger media circus now surrounding Michael Sam than there would have been in the late 80s with Fontenot. The media is going to be breathlessly following Sam around. Would that have happened with Fontenot back in the day?
   1710. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4705945)
Here's TCM's plot summary of Wings. You can invent all the "gay" scenes you want:

Oh. I thought you were going to say the movie, in other places, somehow frowned on the protagonists' obvious gay desire.

You mean it didn't?


That "obvious gay desire" must be one of those things that you can pick up on by reading Chico Marx's secret code book. Funny how none of the critics of the time managed to notice or comment on it, but then according to you, everyone's always in denial about everything, so why should those critics be any different?

---------------------------------------------------------

For God's sake, Andy, open your eyes. The whole movie is about biplanes.

Biplanes that were dropping secret coded messages from Captain Kellerman to the gay icon Adolf Hitler!
   1711. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4705946)
Saying something is "not a big deal" which is a big deal to other people is just being an arsehole.


Well, no, not at all. Unless you're claiming that the liberals here saying Benghazi is "not a big deal" when so many Republicans and conservatives care about it is just "being an arsehole." I mean, that can't be the standard.
   1712. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4705947)
SBB clearly fails to grasp that 1927 audiences didn't read that scene as gay.
   1713. steagles Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4705950)
Does anyone here want to assert that if Barry Sanders were openly gay in college he wouldn't have been drafted by the NFL in 1989?

yep.

but that's not the only interesting hypothetical. if he comes out in college, does he get the same amount of playing time he got at oklahoma state? if he comes out after high school, does his scholarship offer get revoked? if he comes out in high school, does he even make the football team?


if he's a 15 year old third string running back on his high school football team, what do you think the odds are that he just quits the team after he's called a faggot for the thousandth time on a given day?


that's the reason why i don't buy that there are hundreds of gay athletes already in the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL. i think the vast majority of gay athletes who might make it as professionals are selected out long before they get close.
   1714. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4705951)
Barry Sanders would have fallen into the later rounds if he was openly gay. Teams would have commented on his lack of size, lack of toughness and questionable motor.
   1715. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4705954)
The guy from 79 fails to be relevant as he was not openly gay.
   1716. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4705955)
The complaint about the endless Benghazi witch hunts is that it's already been investigated and further panels are simply partisan hack jobs on the taxpayer dime.
   1717. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4705956)
Hilariously I read a review once about Wings where the reviewer stated that the era in which Wings was made in was so "closeted" that they didn't even know there was a closet and thus any homosexual references or overtones would have flown right over the audience's head. Um, no. Whom ever wrote that clearly didn't watch a lot of pre-code movies or even European made movies of that era. In which era would people be mystified by two men kissing?


I mean I can understand that the melodramatic nature of film back then would make this kiss more about the deep platonic love the two men share with each other than about a homosexual act. But don't sit there and tell me that people in 1927 were that naive.
   1718. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4705957)
Also, how has there been no Archer reference yet? Reggie!!!
   1719. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4705959)
that's the reason why i don't buy that there are hundreds of gay athletes already in the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL. i think the vast majority of gay athletes who might make it as professionals are selected out long before they get close.


I wouldn't expect to find the average % of gay men in male sports as in the general population; I'd expect to find a lower percentage, simply because gay males don't gravitate towards sports, for whatever reason (cultural or whatever). Just as you'll find a higher percentage of gay people in theater and the arts than you'll find in a normal cross section of the populace.

Now, female athletics is a different story.
   1720. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4705960)

Not a direct answer and I know this will be a terrible disappointment to everyone who believes social and cultural history began in 2008, but Tom Cousineau was widely rumored to be gay, and he was drafted #1 overall in ... 1979.


The grey area between 'widely rumored' and 'openly public' is the 'closet' that gay people were forced to live in until recently (and still are, in many places). In Saudi Arabia, I can be 'widely rumored' to be an atheist and nobody will care. The moment I publically declare it, however, I will be sentenced to death.


The world's ultimate meritocracy is going to let one of the best running backs to ever walk the Earth stay unemployed because he's gay? In 1989?


You have entirely too high an opinion of the NFL. This is the league in which, just last year, a player was nearly driven to suicide by his teammates because of his personality.
   1721. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4705963)
That "obvious gay desire" must be one of those things that you can pick up on by reading Chico Marx's secret code book.

No need for the quotes, Andy. It's obvious and can't be missed. Even without the kiss, but then the guys kiss.

I hate this term, but you're basically trolling at this point.

Funny how none of the critics of the time managed to notice or comment on it, but then according to you, everyone's always in denial about everything, so why should those critics be any different?


And what does it tell you that they didn't "notice or comment" on it? Seems like the obvious conclusion is that it was no big deal to them.

So none of the critics said much about the kiss or the scene, the audiences lined up to see the movie, the movie was remastered a few decades later with no real commentary on the kiss or the scene, and nothing in the plot of the movie comments on or otherwise makes reference to the kiss or the scene.

That pretty much defines ... normalcy.

What exactly is it that you want people to conclude again?
   1722. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4705967)
I mean I can understand that the melodramatic nature of film back then would make this kiss more about the deep platonic love the two men share with each other than about a homosexual act. But don't sit there and tell me that people in 1927 were that naive.


There are a couple of issues here. First is the conflation homosexual and homoamorous. At most, you can claim Wings was playing with same sex affection or love (homoamorous.) They are not playing with homosexuality (same sex sexual relations.) To read that scene as "gay" is to take modern standards of visual interpretation and project them backwards 100 years. That doesn't work.

In the other direction, but not directly related to Wings or pre-code sexual images, we can't project modern standards as to what was or was not allowable in the past perfectly either. Back when Time named Barack Obama the "first gay president" Salon ran a very interesting piece about James Buchanan and his somewhat openly gay lifestyle. The point is that the social mores of the nation have been more of a roller coaster than a straight climb up a mountain. We elected an openly gay man President in the 1800s. The prewar "flapper era" was a hugely liberated environment for women and sexuality in general. Pre-code you might even slip a wink and a nudge into your high brow moving picture art, which wouldn't really register with the folks in Topeka if they ever even got to an art house to see the film.
   1723. BDC Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4705968)
That pretty much defines ... normalcy

Hence that popular '30s series of Wings pictures: Wings II, where Leslie Howard has to choose between a career flying airmail planes and his homebody lover Franchot Tone; Wings III, where Clark Gable and Randolph Scott have that hilarious scene where they make out while stunt-flying; and the delightful musical Wings IV Ever, where Kenny Baker and Dick Powell get into a crooning love triangle with Nelson Eddy high over Pittsburgh. Who can forget the tag line THEY FLY THEY SING THEY DANCE THEY EXCHANGE MAD GAY KISSES.
   1724. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4705970)
You have entirely too high an opinion of the NFL.


He's employing a highly circular reasoning. The NFL is a meritocracy because it is constantly looking for the best of the best. How do we know a football player is the best of the best? Because they're in the NFL! I stand by my argument that if he were drafted at all "openly gay Barry Sanders" would have been low round pick who was only employed by his team as a punt returner and passing down back. And people would have justified that by his size and "will to play."
   1725. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4705971)
What exactly is it that you want people to conclude again?

Well, that your reading of scene devoid of proper context is wrong. Silent movies were overly dramatic. They weren't very subtle and nuance was probably a foreign word to them. They tended to bludgeon you over the head with whatever point or feeling they wished to show. The scene in question was meant to portray the deep bond the two pilots had for each other and not that they had homosexual feelings for each other. What's next? Are you going to claim that Riggs and Murtaugh were "gay" for each other because they said they love each other?
   1726. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4705972)
So none of the critics said much about the kiss or the scene, the audiences lined up to see the movie, the movie was remastered a few decades later with no real commentary on the kiss or the scene, and nothing in the plot of the movie comments on or otherwise makes reference to the kiss or the scene.

That pretty much defines ... normalcy.


In that gayness was so closeted by 1927 that it wasn't even something anyone would think of reading into that scene, yes. The closet was normalcy.
   1727. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4705974)
At most, you can claim Wings was playing with same sex affection or love (homoamorous.)

No, you can claim the two men desire each other sexually -- as they obviously do.

You can't claim that because it would conflict with the ideological straitjacket you parade around in. Luckily, a lot of us don't wear one, so it's no worry.

   1728. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4705975)
A guy who has worked his ass off his entire life to play in the NFL, who would have absolutely played in the NFL if he had not come out this summer, who dropped and was in danger of not being picked at all exclusively due to the fact that he came out this summer,

That is simply not true. Sam was rated as a 7th round pick by one of the scouting services, and I believe the others were similar. However, they rated about 90 players as 7th round picks and there were only 41 slots including compensatory picks. This is consistent with the historic data that 55% of those similarly rated were not drafted. The guy had a bad combine. Maybe he becomes a good player, but the claim that his draft stock plummeted because he is gay isn't supported by what is now known
   1729. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4705977)
What's next? Are you going to claim that Riggs and Murtaugh were "gay" for each other because they said they love each other?


There's a clip where young Quentin Tarantino explains why Top Gun is fundamentally about Maverick struggling with his homosexuality. It makes about as much sense, non-ironically, as SBB's reading of the final scenes of Wings.
   1730. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4705979)
No, you can claim the two men desire each other sexually -- as they obviously do.


No, you can't. Because you can't project your modern reading of markers for "sexual desire" back into the silent film era. I know you want to. I know you think you can. But you can't. This is yet another point on which you're too ignorant to know how ignorant you're being.
   1731. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4705981)
Perhaps I'm confussing two different people but isn't SBB the guy who said he hasn't watched the film and he just recently watched the scene in question?
   1732. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4705982)
In that gayness was so closeted by 1927 that it wasn't even something anyone would think of reading into that scene, yes. The closet was normalcy.

There's nothing to "read into" the scene. It speaks for itself. It was made in a melodramatic era, which tempers this observation, but hardly vitiates it.

Nor are you remotely qualified to speak insightfully about the world in 1927, and your impressions of the people of 1927's impressions are essentially worthless. You're biased.
   1733. madvillain Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4705984)
You have entirely too high an opinion of the NFL. This is the league in which, just last year, a player was nearly driven to suicide by his teammates because of his personality.


It's also a league that just suspended a guy a year for smoking pot. The NFL is a shameless organization that has one goal: massive accumulation of wealth for anyone lucky enough to be in the club. As far as Sam goes he is only a pawn, the league will use him as it sees fit and be done with it.

I can't prove it but I highly, highly, highly doubt Sam lasts in the league. He's not a transcendent talent and the "baggage" (anything outside of the norm in this case) will be a determining factor, all other things being equal. Chris Kluwe has already elucidated what happens when players of roughly equal talent compete but one has "baggage" as defined by the NFL.
   1734. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4705987)
   1735. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4705988)
There's nothing to "read into" the scene. It speaks for itself.


That's your fundamental mistake. You think a work of art is capable of "speaking for itself." It can't. Ever. It only speaks through an audience.

You're biased.


You're hilarious.
   1736. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4705989)
Because you can't project your modern reading of markers for "sexual desire" back into the silent film era. I know you want to. I know you think you can. But you can't. This is yet another point on which you're too ignorant to know how ignorant you're being.

So filmmakers in 1927 had no means by which to communicate sexual desire between two people? Is that your ridiculous claim?

Or is your ridiculous claim that there is only one "correct" interpretation of those markers?

You're outdoing even yourself today. Stop pretending you're some kind of expert on film and "markers for sexual desire" in film, when you're nothing more than a clueless dilettante playing around with ideas that are way over your head.
   1737. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4705991)
You think a work of art is capable of "speaking for itself." It can't. Ever. It only speaks through an audience.

Good Lord, are you dumb. Did you read this on a fortune cookie somewhere or something?

   1738. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4705992)
So filmmakers in 1927 had no means by which to communicate sexual desire between two people?


They had many. And they used them, to convey things to their assumed audience, who came to the viewing with existing expectations of what can and can not be said. And the fact that you, 100 years later, read the scene as saying something that can be said today, but couldn't be said then, doesn't change the fact that the audiences of the day didn't read it that way. You're just utterly ####### wrong on every aspect of this.

Good Lord, are you dumb. Did you read this on a fortune cookie somewhere or something?


No, child. But some of us actually studied aesthetics for a while there. This is, oddly enough, actually well within the scope of my classical education, Jay-Z.
   1739. Shredder Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4705994)
Barry Sanders was drafted in 1989, around the height of the AIDS panic, two years before Magic had to retire because of AIDS, and well before the drug cocktails that keep the virus in check were developed. AIDS related deaths were multiplying at alarming rate in 1989 (50% more than in 1988, and only half of the reported deaths in 1992, just three years later). I don't know if he would have been drafted, but there would have been a huge media circus around an openly gay athlete playing an often bloody sport. Obviously there's a difference between being gay and having AIDS, but you be hard pressed to argue that a whole bunch of people in this country didn't just automatically assume that if someone was gay, they probably had, or were soon to contract HIV. Hell, I think it's legitimate to question whether Sanders or any openly gay player would have even been allowed to play in 1989!
   1740. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4705995)
isn't SBB the guy who said he hasn't watched the film and he just recently watched the scene in question?

At first, I too thought the gayest thing here was SugarBear pulling an incorrect premise out of his ass. It appeared that he was stubbornly clinging to the small nugget of information he only just picked up from a quick Google search and its link to an out-of-context clip from a film he'd never seen in a melodramatic tradition he seems to know little about. But this is OTP: Politics. And the way he's staying on message and refusing to abandon his lone talking point has swayed me. I ate chicken wings last weekend, and thought nothing of it. But in retrospect, those wings were queer.
   1741. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4705996)
That "obvious gay desire" must be one of those things that you can pick up on by reading Chico Marx's secret code book.

No need for the quotes, Andy. It's obvious and can't be missed. Even without the kiss, but then the guys kiss.


Right, and this proves that they're hot for each other. Clearly the word "context" is a foreign concept to you, as it so often is whenever you opine off the top of your head.

So none of the critics said much about the kiss or the scene, the audiences lined up to see the movie, the movie was remastered a few decades later with no real commentary on the kiss or the scene, and nothing in the plot of the movie comments on or otherwise makes reference to the kiss or the scene.

That pretty much defines ... normalcy.


Exactly. The normalcy of melodrama. The normalcy of male heterosexual bonding in time of war. The normalcy of deathbed realizations that even the fiercest of personal feuds amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things. The normalcy of the heterosexual attractions on display before and after the only scene that you've actually watched. But no need to tell you anything, since you already know everything and seem quite pleased at proclaiming it to the world.

Jesus, the next thing you'll be saying is that Charlie Chaplin's repeated use of eyeliner proves that he was really a woman crying out in symbolic agony at being forced to live a lie. Any more deconstructions of movies you've never seen that you want to clue us in on?

----------------------------------------

Perhaps I'm confusing two different people but isn't SBB the guy who said he hasn't watched the film and he just recently watched the scene in question?

Yeah, that's the same old reliable Sugar Bear, the one who wrote the book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
   1742. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4705999)
They had many. And they used them, to convey things to their assumed audience, who came to the viewing with existing expectations of what can and can not be said.

Of course they had techniques to communicate things to their "assumed audience." The rest of the assertion is incomprehensible.

And the fact that you, 100 years later, read the scene as saying something that can be said today, but couldn't be said then, doesn't change the fact that the audiences of the day didn't read it that way.

Didn't read what, what way? You don't really know, right ... without reference to your 2014 ideological straitjacket? I mean, yeah, if you assume everyone in the audience demanded the closet, everything else follows. Makes things nice and tidy for you.

Two men kissing in a movie isn't really two men kissing in a movie, unless it's 2014? Good to know.
   1743. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4706000)
But this is OTP: Politics. And the way he's staying on message and refusing to abandon his lone talking point has swayed me. I ate chicken wings last weekend, and thought nothing of it. But in retrospect, those wings were queer.

And Christ, every time I go downstairs to run a few racks I'll now be worrying about the hidden sexual meaning of using a long stick to fire balls into purposely tightened holes. That may seem symbolically hetero, but that's not what my cue stick's telling me every time I grab a hold of his firm, inch wide wood.
   1744. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4706001)
This chart should scare Democrats:
The big debate in electoral politics these days is not whether the national environment will be bad for Democrats this November but rather how bad it will be. A new chart put together by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm, suggests things could be worse for Democrats than even recent wave elections from 1994 through 2010. (Yes, POS is a GOP polling firm but the data in the chart is taken from the NBC-Wall Street Journal April survey, which they, along with a Democratic firm, help to conduct.)
. . .
On virtually every measure of which way -- and how strong -- the winds are blowing at the moment, the 2014 election looks to be shaping up worse for Democrats than recent "shellacking" elections both parties have endured. Perhaps most important of those factors is presidential job approval, which has long correlated with gains (and losses) for his party in midterm elections. Obama's rating -- a -8 -- puts him in territory resembling where he stood in 2010 and not that far from George W. Bush's disastrous -18 score just prior to his party's disastrous 2006 election.

Those numbers were taken from October polling, and we're not there yet this year, but the numbers will have to move (and stay) in a Democratic direction to prevent heavy losses.
   1745. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4706002)
Exactly. The normalcy of melodrama. The normalcy of male heterosexual bonding in time of war. The normalcy of deathbed realizations that even the fiercest of personal feuds amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things. The normalcy of the heterosexual attractions on display before and after the only scene that you've actually watched. But no need to tell you anything, since you already know everything and seem quite pleased at proclaiming it to the world.

You left out: The normalcy of two men sitting on a bed for three minutes, stroking each others' hair tenderly, looking into each others' eyes longingly, professing their eternal devotion and fidelity to each other, and kissing each other.

On silver halide, for the world to consume.

Any more deconstructions of movies you've never seen that you want to clue us in on?

No deconstruction here. Purely textual analysis.

EDIT: And Christ, every time I go downstairs to run a few racks I'll now be worrying about the hidden sexual meaning of using a long stick to fire balls into purposely tightened holes. That may seem symbolically hetero, but that's not what my cue stick's telling me every time I grab a hold of his firm, inch wide wood.

And no "hidden meaning." There's nothing really hidden.



   1746. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4706003)
Two men kissing in a movie isn't really two men kissing in a movie, unless it's 2014? Good to know.

And two men fighting in a movie can always be assumed to be blood enemies, because any fool can see that they're beating up on each other, and only enemies ever do that.
   1747. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4706006)
No deconstruction here. Purely textual analysis.

You should take your game to Duke or Harvard, where you'd fit right into their critical gender studies programs.
   1748. The Good Face Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4706007)
That is simply not true. Sam was rated as a 7th round pick by one of the scouting services, and I believe the others were similar. However, they rated about 90 players as 7th round picks and there were only 41 slots including compensatory picks. This is consistent with the historic data that 55% of those similarly rated were not drafted. The guy had a bad combine. Maybe he becomes a good player, but the claim that his draft stock plummeted because he is gay isn't supported by what is now known


Yep. Sam's draft problems were a result of his measurables; he was (comparatively) slow, weak, not good against the run, and had a limited repetoire of pass rushing moves. Ironically, his strengths are the intangible stuff; he's supposedly a smart, tough player, has a strong motor, is a gritty gamer who possesses the will to win, etc.
   1749. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4706010)
Yep. Sam's draft problems were a result of his measurables; he was (comparatively) slow, weak, not good against the run, and had a limited repetoire of pass rushing moves. Ironically, his strengths are the intangible stuff; he's supposedly a smart, tough player, has a strong motor, is a gritty gamer who possesses the will to win, etc.

I peripherally follow football as just someone who pays attention when people talk about it even if it generally bores me. Given that, did I mis-hear or didn't he win some kind of defensive player of the year award?
   1750. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4706011)

You think a work of art is capable of "speaking for itself." It can't. Ever. It only speaks through an audience.

Good Lord, are you dumb. Did you read this on a fortune cookie somewhere or something?


I'm a professional art historian, and I agree 100%.
   1751. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4706012)
You left out: The normalcy of two men sitting on a bed for three minutes, stroking each others' hair tenderly, looking into each others' eyes longingly, professing their eternal devotion and fidelity to each other, and kissing each other.


Man, I hope I never have to watch the ending of "Return of the King" again.
   1752. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4706013)
World War I biplane battles... "searching for"... grip stick... rotary throttle... that stiff, phallic scarf... how much clearer does he have to say it?
   1753. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4706017)
I'm a professional art historian, and I agree 100%.

I agree with the principle, not its application to this conversation. Obviously art doesn't literally "speak for itself," but only through the cumulative perceptions of its audiences.

Which doesn't mean that the critic can simply read into a film things that aren't there.
   1754. Chip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4706019)
Man, I hope I never have to watch the ending of "Return of the King" again.


Forget the ending, the whole trilogy is about the gay hobbit couple Frodo and Sam.
   1755. The Good Face Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4706022)
I peripherally follow football as just someone who pays attention when people talk about it even if it generally bores me. Given that, did I mis-hear or didn't he win some kind of defensive player of the year award?


Yes, he had a good season and was a fine college player. The concern NFL scouts have is that his marginal (by NFL standards) athleticism won't let him translate those results to the NFL game, where everybody is bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Doesn't mean he can't have a great career though. London Fletcher went undrafted and went on to win a Super Bowl as a starter, play in 4 Pro Bowls, and play in 250 consecutive games; pretty nice career for a guy nobody bothered drafting.
   1756. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4706024)
Forget the ending, the whole trilogy is about the gay hobbit couple Frodo and Sam.

"Two towers," indeed.
   1757. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4706026)
Except you're trying to read into Wings things that aren't there. You're applying a revisionist critical lens to project a sexuality to the scene that simply is anachronistic to its era. Funny bit is the folks usually doing this are left edge queer studies types attempting to find historical art where it doesn't exist.
   1758. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4706027)
I'm a professional art historian, and I agree 100%.

A far more interesting debate.

I don't think you'd say that this agreement is universal amongst your colleagues, though, would you?
   1759. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4706028)
I don't think you'd say that this feeling is universal amongst your colleagues, though, would you?


Universal? Of course not. But most critics recognize the role of the audience in every work of art. Put a piece in any format on a shelf in an empty room and lock the door. What does that piece "say?"
   1760. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4706030)
Forget the ending, the whole trilogy is about the gay hobbit couple Frodo and Sam.


Talk about reading into things stuff that isn't there, Frodo obviously does not reciprocate Sam's affections of that sort, meaning that while Sam and Frodo are obviously friends, and Sam obviously wishes they were something more, they were not and never were gonna be a "couple"
   1761. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4706031)
Except you're trying to read into Winga things that aren't there. You're applying a revisionist critical lens to project a sexuality to the scene that simply is anachronistic to its era. Funny bit is the folks usually doing this are left edge queer studies types attempting to find historical art where it doesn't exist.

Not really. All I really did was say that two men were depicted kissing onscreen in the American cinema as early as 1927. Then I watched the scene and found it to be much more than simply the kiss -- which it obviously is. From there, we got off on some tangents.

I get the context and melodrama arguments, but the fact of the matter is that cultural distaste of certain things is sometimes expressed by in banning or limiting the very depiction of them on a film screen -- regardless of context. See, e.g., pornography for quite some time. The very act of depicting something on screen therefore has cultural meaning(*) , as does the cultural reaction thereto. "Context" is a secondary consideration to the act of depiction.

(*) Which is precisely why so many people are so proud of the 2014 video depiction of "The Kiss."

   1762. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4706032)
What does that piece "say?"


I dunno, some probably are screaming "let me outta here!"

some probably sigh, "ahhh... peace and quiet at last..."
   1763. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4706034)
Put a piece in any format on a shelf in an empty room and lock the door. What does that piece "say?"

Well, a painting of an interior of a gothic cathedral by Peeter (randomly, just looked up) says, primarily, look how awesome this cathedral is. Obviously the role of the audience in the history of art is unfathomably large. At the same time, I just don't think that saying all art says nothing at all without an audience is remotely close to accurate.
   1764. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4706042)
Just thought I'd throw this into the conversation, my wife grew up in China, she's noted that in China, teenage and 20 something girls walk around hand in hand, hug and kiss in public in a way that they don't here in the US or Canada. (China, especially 20+ years ago was far less accepting of Homosexuality than here). Here women/girls don't do that, and if they do are apt to be regarded as gay. In China, the thought that two girls (or boys) walking down the street together might be gay just isn't on the average (i.e., straight) person's radar no matter how the couple is behaving.

The Atlantic 2-3 years ago had an article about this kind of phenomena in Saudi Arabia of all places, a gay couple can go out and do anything short of naked groping in public and nothing happens, because to your average Saudi homosexuality is both a banned abomination and also inconceivable. (And the Saudis who can recognize such behavior for what it is sure as hell aren't the type to turn such a couple over to the tender mercies of the religious police)
   1765. zenbitz Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4706043)
Well, no, not at all. Unless you're claiming that the liberals here saying Benghazi is "not a big deal" when so many Republicans and conservatives care about it is just "being an arsehole." I mean, that can't be the standard.


I believe that the difference is that there is a factual dispute - will the Bengazi "scandal" materially hurt the Democrats in 2014 and 2016. Not whether or not it gives conservatives warm fuzzies - or if those warm fuzzies are "valid". Still, if you were at a family reunion and your wingnut uncle started going off about Bengazi it would be rude and pointless to debate him on it.

   1766. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4706045)
The NY Times review of Wings (August 13, 1927) had nothing on either the kiss or the scene. The reviewer found the final scene -- the return home (which I assume happens after The Scene) -- to be, "like so many screen stories, much too sentimental, and there is far much more of it than one wants." Save for that, the review was quite positive.

Two men depicted kissing on screen wasn't even deemed worthy of comment in the Paper of Record.
   1767. Ron J2 Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4706046)
#1724 I kind of agree I think. That's why I suggested a "can't miss" QB. Not somebody with legitimate questions, but somebody who compiled a great resume, had all of the physical tools and came out late -- say outed just before draft day.

Maybe Aikman slips a spot or two, but I doubt it.
   1768. Morty Causa Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4706048)
Here women/girls don't do that,

Well, they may not do it to the extent it's done in China (China may be in this like America was 50+ years ago. Still, heterosexual females seem to me to be much more physically familiar and demonstrative with each other than heterosexual males are. Funnyt, though, it seems to the be the opposite when it comes to the homosexual counterparts.
   1769. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4706051)
Talk about reading into things stuff that isn't there, Frodo obviously does not reciprocate Sam's affections of that sort, meaning that while Sam and Frodo are obviously friends, and Sam obviously wishes they were something more, they were not and never were gonna be a "couple"


The One Ring clearly sapped Frodo's libido. At least Sam was able to find a suitable beard for his unrequited urges, Frodo might as well be a eunuch. Smeagol was having a gay afternoon out with his bosom chum Deagol until the One Ring turned up and demanded monastic devotion. The whole series is about the castrating nature of materialism.
   1770. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4706052)
Given that, did I mis-hear or didn't he win some kind of defensive player of the year award?

He was the Co-Defensive Player of the Year in his conference, which is not insignificant, but apparently not enough to outweigh what the scouts actually measure - not unlike Tim Tebow's Heisman Trophy, or other similar stories.
   1771. andrewberg Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4706053)
Is that behavior by Chinese women and girls common in any other Asian cultures? There are tons of young Asian women around where I work and I see this all the time, but the population skews more Korean and Japanese than Chinese.
   1772. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4706054)
Two men depicted kissing on screen wasn't even deemed worthy of comment in the Paper of Record.


Actually commenting on the fact that the scene depicting two men appeared to be somewhat amorous would have at the time been deemed scandalous and would have subjected the Paper of Record to lawsuits and boycotts (unless the Paper of Record had pointed the scene out solely to condemn it and call for a boycott of the film).
   1773. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4706057)
Is that behavior by Chinese women and girls common in any other Asian cultures?


Dunno, really just going on what my wife says.
   1774. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4706058)
The NY Times review of Wings (August 13, 1927) had nothing on either the kiss or the scene. The reviewer found the final scene -- the return home (which I assume happens after The Scene) -- to be, "like so many screen stories, much too sentimental, and there is far much more of it than one wants." Save for that, the review was quite positive.

Two men depicted kissing on screen wasn't even deemed worthy of comment in the Paper of Record.


Which obviously means that homosexual activity on screen was considered normal. Which explains why love stories featuring same sex couples were commonplace in the Hollywood movies of the 20's and 30's. Nothing escapes Sugar Bear's wily watch.
   1775. Canker Soriano Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4706064)
He was the Co-Defensive Player of the Year in his conference, which is not insignificant, but apparently not enough to outweigh what the scouts actually measure - not unlike Tim Tebow's Heisman Trophy, or other similar stories.

True - the list of Heisman Trophy winners is littered with people who most thought would never make it in the pros. But that's largely because the Heisman Trophy voters are a bizarre and inbred bunch who seem genetically programmed to vote for winning QBs regardless of how good anyone else is.

(Not saying that applies to Sam, but there are plenty of award-winning players at the college level whose skill sets are judged not to translate well when you get to bigger and faster competition. Wide receivers who are too short, running backs who are too slow, QBs without the necessary arm strength, etc. It's like a guy who might be the AAA Player of the Year in baseball but who the scouts agree will never be able to hit a major league breaking ball.)
   1776. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4706065)
The One Ring clearly sapped Frodo's libido. At least Sam was able to find a suitable beard for his unrequited urges, Frodo might as well be a eunuch. Smeagol was having a gay afternoon out with his bosom chum Deagol until the One Ring turned up and demanded monastic devotion. The whole series is about the castrating nature of materialism.

Bind them all. Oh yeah, baby, bind them all.


Which explains why love stories featuring same sex couples were commonplace in the Hollywood movies of the 20's and 30's.

Mmmmm. Nothing like a double feature of "The Lady Vanishes" and "Boys Town."


What, you thought that bugle Gunga Din was blowing represented a bugle?
   1777. Ron J2 Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4706067)
#1749 He did win an award (or co-won it with somebody who went in the third round).

However, When you break his skills down right now he's a one trick pony. He can beat most college tackles on a wide pass rush. Now as single tricks go that's a pretty good base from which to start (given his position). Plenty of speed rushers have been very successful.

However he's with a team with roughly zero need for a pass rush specialist. They had an excellent one already and spent their first round pick on an impact defensive lineman.

   1778. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4706068)
Which obviously means that homosexual activity on screen was considered normal. Which explains why love stories featuring same sex couples were commonplace in the Hollywood movies of the 20's and 30's. Nothing escapes Sugar Bear's wily watch.

Which means neither two men kissing on screen, nor the depiction on screen of two men kissing, were considered worthy of comment. There isn't so much as a hint of a hint of an allusion to anything out of the ordinary happening or being depicted in the film.

Compare and contrast the vast amount of commentary on the depiction on screen of Michael Sam kissing a man in 2014.
   1779. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4706077)
He was the Co-Defensive Player of the Year in his conference, which is not insignificant, but apparently not enough to outweigh what the scouts actually measure - not unlike Tim Tebow's Heisman Trophy, or other similar stories.

Viewing - again, from the outside as someone who knows sports but isn't a football fan - the whole Tebow thing was really bizarre to me. It was like the narrative was decided that he sucked, period, and nothing he did actually mattered, good or bad. It was very odd. Maybe I'm the only one who thought so.
   1780. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4706081)
#1779 Tebow simply did not have an NFL quarterback's arm, either in strength or in accuracy or in quickness, and sucked at making reads and checking down receivers, which is why if his first receiver wasn't open he often would just take off and run.

If he were gay the usual suspects would have claimed he was drummed out of the league because he was gay, but since he is Christian and deeply religious another set of usual suspects claimed he was drummed out of the league for being deeply religious.

He could not throw.
   1781. SteveF Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4706089)
He could not throw.

This cannot be emphasized enough. If anything, they let him hang around far longer than his performances merited because his team managed to win a few games in spite of him.

There were competing narratives. You had the 'he's a winner' narrative and the 'he can't throw' narrative. Over enough games, the talent eventually dictates and the 'he can't throw' narrative won.
   1782. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4706090)
- the whole Tebow thing was really bizarre to me. It was like the narrative was decided that he sucked, period, and nothing he did actually mattered, good or bad. It was very odd.


This post is very odd to me, because I saw two narratives, neither quite matching the one you saw.

1: Tebow was great, period, and nothing he did actually mattered, good or bad. This started morphing into claims that Tebow was being discriminated against because of his open evangelical Christianity when the counter narrative that he sucked took greater hold, and also of course when teams wouldn't play Tebow.

2: Tebow sucked, period, and what he did mattered because it was usually bad, he made the playoffs with Denver one year because the defense was great and the team carried him- this is when the two narratives really collided, because the ones pushing Narrative 1 just kept saying, "but he wins!" in response to every argument pointing out that Tebow had, in fact, played poorly... (Trust me I saw two Jets teams get to the AFC finals having to carry a poor QB to get there rather than vice versa

Then out of no where he was brilliant in one playoff game...


What Ray says in 1780 is accurate, Tebow was just never an NFL QB, he had an odd mix of skills/physical attributes that just didn't fit in the NFL game, I suppose an inventive coach could have done something- putting Tebow in the field as a second QB/Fullback, lining up behind the main QB or something
   1783. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4706091)
So the games he won and good passing games he had were straight aberrations? I think that's what I just don't get.

I suppose. It looked to me like he was drummed out by an amorphous narrative. I realize I'm unique in this view and it probably doesn't have a lot of merit, just my impression.

   1784. Shredder Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4706092)
Viewing - again, from the outside as someone who knows sports but isn't a football fan - the whole Tebow thing was really bizarre to me. It was like the narrative was decided that he sucked, period, and nothing he did actually mattered, good or bad.
But that's not really true, considering just about nothing he did was good. He had a crazy run at the end of a season with the Broncos when opposing defenses for some reason just made high school level mistakes that he and the Broncos were able to exploit, sometimes by shear luck. And when the defenses didn't do enough to give the game away, the opposing offenses did, running out of bounds for no reason, and coughing up the football after already getting into field goal range.

I think the NFL, if a guy isn't suspended, isn't harming the team on the field with his antics, and is contributing physically, he's going to play. The fact that multiple NFL teams could see that Tebow just couldn't cut it at quarterback is a pretty good indication that he just couldn't play QB at that level. It wasn't a narrative. He actually sucked.
   1785. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4706095)
Tebow was overdrafted and could never really play. The really weird part was when the Jesus freaks started saying he was winning a bunch of close games because his devotion led Jesus and/or God to make him win close games. There was a peak stretch of about a month in late 2011/early 2012 where the nuts and loons all but figured him for the Second Coming.

The fact that he sucked actually played into this narrative -- "Yeah he sucks, but he can still win because Jesus and God are winners and they've chosen him to win. See how powerful Jesus and God are??"
   1786. Shredder Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:22 PM (#4706096)
So the games he won and good passing games he had were straight aberrations? I think that's what I just don't get.
This guy threw a perfect game. Blind squirrels trip over nuts every now and then.
The really weird part was when the Jesus freaks started saying he was winning a bunch of close games because his devotion led Jesus and/or God to make him win close games.
I suppose if you truly believe that God is always looking out for you and couldn't care less about the other guy, you can also make yourself believe that God made Marion Barber run out of bounds and fumble.
   1787. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4706097)
So the games he won and good passing games he had were straight aberrations? I think that's what I just don't get.


Ruben Tejada sometimes gets two hits in a game. He sucks nonetheless.
   1788. BDC Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4706098)
Lassus, in 2011 when Tebow got his shot with Denver, he was dead last in the NFL in pass completion percentage, over a reasonable number of starts. 46.5%, that's terrible; the median QB that year was about 60%. He even went 10-for-21 in the one playoff game he won, though by far his best performance overall, and promptly went 9-for-26 in the next round. He really did simply drop below replacement level.
   1789. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4706099)
Just piling on, Tebow for his career completed less than 50% of his passes


Yes there are QBs in the Hall of Fame under 50%, they also played decades ago in a very different game. Last year the overall NFL completion rate was 60.9%

He ran well for a QB, so there's that.

The attention that ESPN gave him was over the top absurd... I can't quite think of a good MLB parallel, except if the MSM media gave Frenchy attention commensurate with how much attention he got here in BBTF.
   1790. The Good Face Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:26 PM (#4706102)
What Ray says in 1780 is accurate, Tebow was just never an NFL QB, he had an odd mix of skills/physical attributes that just didn't fit in the NFL game, I suppose an inventive coach could have done something- putting Tebow in the field as a second QB/Fullback, lining up behind the main QB or something


If he'd been willing to switch to H-back/TE/Fullback, he'd probably still be in the league today; several teams made him offers to that effect. Tebow was big, strong, and fast, but he just didn't have the throwing/reading defense skills necessary to be a successful NFL QB. I do think his fandom and media profile probably hurt him though; even if he'd been willing to take a backup or H-back role, every time the starting QB threw a pick, there'd be a "Bench him and start Tebow!" clamor, aided and abetted by the local sports media. Teams just don't need that kind of headache for a marginal player.

So the games he won and good passing games he had were straight aberrations? I think that's what I just don't get.


Sometimes the Yuniesky Betancourts of the world get 4 hits in a game. Just because a guy sucks compared to his peers doesn't mean he sucks in an absolute sense. It just means that you only play him if you absolutely can't find anybody better.
   1791. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4706103)
So the games he won and good passing games he had were straight aberrations?


1: he didn't win, his team won- despite him, he was like the MLB pitcher who gives up 5 runs in 5 innings and gets a "W" because his team put up 7 in the 3rd and never loses the lead. Jenrry Mejia is 4-0 right now, he's been terrible, he's been bailed out of a few losses to get no-Ds, some moron called the FAN last night to call him a "winner" as in "he just knows how to win"

2: he didn't have good passing games, he had ONE good passing game, and yes it was ludicrously out of place next to every other NFL game he ever played.
   1792. Lassus Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4706104)
All noted - I certainly wasn't paying CLOSE attention. I think part of it was how fast it ended after Denver seemed to give him a green light.


Sometimes the Yuniesky Betancourts of the world get 4 hits in a game.

Yeah, of course. I had the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that it was more than one game.


Thanks, all.
   1793. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4706105)
And we are not talking about lack of accuracy as in the typical "he throws behind the receiver and the receiver reaches back and gets a hand on it and tries to make a play." He was missing wide open receivers by 15 yards. You had to see it to believe it.

"Could not hit the broad side of a barn" was at times literally true in his case.
   1794. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4706107)
His cult fame had reached such absurd heights relative to the quality of his play that when the Jets signed him to be a backup quarterback he held a press conference.

And people showed up.

In droves.
   1795. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4706114)
I think part of it was how fast it ended after Denver seemed to give him a green light.


What happened in Denver was this:

Denver drafted him in the 1st round, while he was an extremely effective NCAA player, no one really saw him as 1st (or 2nd or even 3rd round talent), but he was a 1st round pick and he had this really large and really creepy personal fan base that you don't really see in the NFL come along with him.

then Denver hired John Elway as GM, and Elway pretty clearly did not think that Tebow was an NFL quarterback, trouble was that Denver's offense was sputtering, the team wasn't winning and the fanbase was howling, week after seemingly endless week. So Denver relented and throw Tebow out there as a starter, seemingly in an effort to get Tebow's fans to shut up. (he wasn't ready to play, hell he was never ready to play a year later in NY, he was seemingly incapable of lining up in practice, dropping back and hitting a WR running a route - with no defense on the damn field, his mechanics were as bad 4 years in as the day he first showed up on an NFL practice field)
But damned if he didn't win that game (18-15 against Miami - Tebow was awful the entire game (I imagine that Elway was muttering, "this'll shut the morons up" the whole game), but down 15-7 Tebow actually lead a scoring drive capped off by his own 2 point conversion, Denver won on a FG on overtime and Tebomania kicked into gear.

Tebow played poorly the next week and Denver got crushed, but he was given another chance, and reeled off 6 straight wins, all but one razor close, and many being essentially decided by odd occurrences as mentioned above- having little or nothing to do with Tebow unless you go for the divine assistance theory. A couple games he did have terrific RUSHING performances, but a QB's main job is to pass the ball and he did that poorly
   1796. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 13, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4706115)
The NY Times review of Wings (August 13, 1927) had nothing on either the kiss or the scene. The reviewer found the final scene -- the return home (which I assume happens after The Scene) -- to be, "like so many screen stories, much too sentimental, and there is far much more of it than one wants." Save for that, the review was quite positive.

Two men depicted kissing on screen wasn't even deemed worthy of comment in the Paper of Record.

Which obviously means that homosexual activity on screen was considered normal. Which explains why love stories featuring same sex couples were commonplace in the Hollywood movies of the 20's and 30's. Nothing escapes Sugar Bear's wily watch.

Which means neither two men kissing on screen, nor the depiction on screen of two men kissing, were considered worthy of comment. There isn't so much as a hint of a hint of an allusion to anything out of the ordinary happening or being depicted in the film.


Which leads everyone but you to deduce that the reason for this interpretation is because they didn't read homosexual motivation into a scene where it wasn't present. But then we all know that your powers of deduction are beyond extraordinary, and unparalleled in the history of BTF.

Compare and contrast the vast amount of commentary on the depiction on screen of Michael Sam kissing a man in 2014.

Which concerned a gay couple breaking a previous taboo within the context of the NFL.

1927: Nobody comments on a melodramatic scene that had nothing to do with homosexuality, because nobody interpreted the scene as having anything to do with sexual attraction.

2014: Oodles of people comment on the first openly gay draftee in NFL history kissing his boyfriend on national TV, in the context of a culture which has long been homophobic to the max.

And this contrast is supposed to prove exactly what? That an apple isn't like a toaster?
   1797. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 13, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4706121)
To update the Tim Tebow saga, Jon Gruden said recently that Tebow has remade his fundamentals considerably since he was last in the league, and could now be a viable NFL quarterback. Not sure if he'll get a chance to demonstrate that one way or another.
   1798. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 13, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4706124)
Which leads everyone but you to deduce that the reason for this interpretation is because they didn't read homosexual motivation into a scene where it wasn't present. But then we all know that your powers of deduction are beyond extraordinary, and unparalleled in the history of BTF.

You're still misunderstanding, and it can't be me because I said it at least three times. I'm talking about the depiction of two men kissing onscreen, and nothing more. If the film had shown two people #######, or a guy sticking a crucifix in a woman's vagina, do you suspect that it would have passed without comment?

Why am I talking about the depiction of two men kissing onscreen? Because everybody's talking about Michael Sam kissing a guy onscreen, that's why.

1927: Nobody comments on a melodramatic scene that had nothing to do with homosexuality, because nobody interpreted the scene as having anything to do with sexual attraction.

The scene depicted a kiss between two men, not clearly and explicitly Platonic, (*) rendering null your claim that it had "nothing to do with homosexuality." Nor do you have any evidence that "nobody interpreted the scene as having anything to do with sexual attraction." You've said that several times now, with no support. You're simply inventing things. The tautology you and Sam have trotted out -- it had nothing to do with homosexuality because nobody said anything about it; if anyone thought it had anything to do with homosexuality, everyone would have screamed about it -- is just that. A tautology, not an argument, and not evidence.

(*) And three minutes of other indicia of deep male attraction, another critical component of homosexuality. That's what it depicted, beyond any argument. It depicted a male on male kiss and three minutes of other indicia of deep male attraction. On a bed. I suppose the context may have had some impact on the "ultimate meaning," such as it is -- but the facts of what it depicted are perfectly clear, no more subject to real dispute than the fact that John Travolta didn't appear in Casablanca. The burden is on you, not me, to explain how the "context" modified the meaning of what was depicted -- and the cultural reaction thereto. So far, you haven't come close to meeting the burden. The rest of the movie did not frown upon the scene, nor did the broader culture.



   1799. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 13, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4706127)
Again, great analysis. Some dopes in denial might think the end of "Wings" showed a death scene like the real-life one between Lord Nelson and Admiral Hardy at the battle of Trafalgar, but that's just crazy talk. The term "comrades in arms" doesn't mention male nudity, but then, it doesn't have to. The scene is 100% gay all the way, with just a tinge of necrophilia.

And I think we all know why Stan's jaw is so sore.

Hey, you two lovebirds, get a room.
   1800. BDC Posted: May 13, 2014 at 06:40 PM (#4706132)
flip
Page 18 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(631 - 6:39am, Oct 31)
Last: Norcan

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(10 - 6:15am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(18 - 6:07am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(2 - 4:23am, Oct 31)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(83 - 4:02am, Oct 31)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(135 - 3:35am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(10 - 2:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Dan

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(52 - 2:35am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1021 - 1:53am, Oct 31)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(108 - 1:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4785 - 12:40am, Oct 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 1.1603 seconds
52 querie(s) executed